Revising the HttT Text & Dialogue

[Telchin]

Thus the plot would change from a story of Good vs. Evil to a story of 'big politics'. In medieval times wars between different nobles, all claiming to be the legal King, were'nt that rare. So IMO it would be more suitable to HttT.

I´m not sure that "big politics" is more suitable for HttT. Fantasy stories being about Good vs Evil is foundation of the genre. That said I sort of agree with your general point - while Asheviere did horrible things, we´re told that a posteriori in the campaign´s introduction rather than seeing that in the campaign proper. I guess it´s because HttT was Wesnoth´s original campaign, so it´s story was just an excuse for a tech demo (you recruit units of various factions, fight enemies from various factions, etc.)

Also, she could claim that she'd used orc mercenaries to help watching over Wesnoth because of the Army's weakening. Of course, those orcs were used as tools for her tyranny, but hey, at least Wesnoth wasn't invaded during her reign; maybe it was her using of orcs that prevented other orcs from attempting to invade the kingdom

It ´s funny that Asheviere using orcish mercenaries is presented as sign of her evil, while her enemies also employ non-Wesnothian non-humans. It just that the Elves have better propaganda than the orcs.

[Elfarion]

I´m not sure that "big politics" is more suitable for HttT. Fantasy stories being about Good vs Evil is foundation of the genre.

Of the genre? I would'nt say so. There are various fantasy stories where the difference between good and bad isn't that clear, like in the books of Patrick Rothfuss or Trudi Canavan. Also Game of Thrones is an excellent example for how big politics is suitable for fantasy.
Of the game? Rather than of the entire genre. But then I would like to know who's good and who's bad in DiD.
Apart from that, my post was supposed to point out that the sides are presented one-dimensional without any justifications for Asheviere's behaviour. (Regardless how convincing these justifications would be.)

[Telchin]

You´re right that I was needlessly generalizing. It was mostly bias on my part as I prefer mostly clearly defined good and bad side in a story (or alternatively two "good" sides finding a peaceful solution to their conflict) as there are enough morally ambiguos conflicts in the real world, so a bit of idealism seems refreshing to me.
Otherwise I agree with your opinion that Asheviere is portraied as evil simply because the narrator says so. Even Lisar decides to kill her own mother simply after being told (by Asheviere´s enemies) what Asheviere did without seeing that herself. Meanwhile Delfador himself isn´t exactly saint (as he apparently lied to Konrad and most of their allies for the most of the campaign), but nobody bats an eyelid at that. Admittedly lying isn´t the same as killing babies, I just pointed an example where the campaign could either portray the sides less clear cut or provide additional justification why we should side with the protagonists.

[revansurik]

It ´s funny that Asheviere using orcish mercenaries is presented as sign of her evil, while her enemies also employ non-Wesnothian non-humans. It just that the Elves have better propaganda than the orcs.

It's not explicitly said, I think, but I've always thought they were violent towards the civilians...

Even Lisar decides to kill her own mother simply after being told (by Asheviere´s enemies) what Asheviere did without seeing that herself

That's something that has always bugged me: she was so loyal to her mother, and then all it takes for her to switch sides is a couple of elves saying Asheviere was evil. Maybe there should be a dialogue, or a story part where she's able to see with her own eyes the situation of the kingdom and its people.

[Elfarion]

You´re right that I was needlessly generalizing. It was mostly bias on my part as I prefer mostly clearly defined good and bad side in a story (or alternatively two "good" sides finding a peaceful solution to their conflict) as there are enough morally ambiguos conflicts in the real world, so a bit of idealism seems refreshing to me.

No need to be ashamed of something that belongs to being human.

That's something that has always bugged me: she was so loyal to her mother, and then all it takes for her to switch sides is a couple of elves saying Asheviere was evil. Maybe there should be a dialogue, or a story part where she's able to see with her own eyes the situation of the kingdom and its people.

In fact, the process of Li'sar rethinking her mother's behaviour starts earlier. In the scenario after A Choice Must Be Made she sais (although not very explicitly) that her mother is corrupted by power and she (Li'sar) has been betrayed and fallen to Asheviere's lies.

[revansurik]

In fact, the process of Li'sar rethinking her mother's behaviour starts earlier. In the scenario after A Choice Must Be Made she sais (although not very explicitly) that her mother is corrupted by power and she (Li'sar) has been betrayed and fallen to Asheviere's lies.

True, I had forgotten that part...

[Kanzil]

I´m not sure that "big politics" is more suitable for HttT

I'm agreed on that point. Books like the Wheel of Time, a Game of Thrones, Malazan book of the Fallen etc. can deal with that sort of stuff because they're thousands of pages long. HttT, however, is not, and in no way attempts to be a literary masterpiece nor an accurate portrayal of machiavellian intrigue and politics. It has a solid storyline and good scenarios; it is intended to be a simple introduction to Wesnoth from which one can derive enjoyment, no more. Of course, it is nice to have good story and dialogue, but politics and the like is better reserved for campaigns of greater span. Whilst I would love to write such a campaign, and would happily endorse a campaign that attempted to introduce such elements, it does not fit HttT: HttT is very much your archetypal Good meets Evil campaign, and needs be no more.

[LordBob]

I'm catching a running train here and haven't read the entire thread, but something has been bothering me ever since I've begun work on the HttT portraits. A concern not very unlike Elfarion's (with whom I wholeheartedly agree), regarding Asheviere's character.

What is Asheviere's drive in having the young princes executed ? (see intro)

I mean, I can understand how Delfador killing her firstborn pisses her to no end and how she will strive to put her surviving children on the throne, but why kill the princes ? For all I know, they are also her children and the legitimate heirs. What need is there to have them killed? Are they natural children of Garard who somehow outranked Lisa'r in the line of succession? It seems to me that story elements given in the campaign were never that clear on this subject.

[zookeeper]

I'm catching a running train here and haven't read the entire thread, but something has been bothering me ever since I've begun work on the HttT portraits. A concern not very unlike Elfarion's (with whom I wholeheartedly agree), regarding Asheviere's character.

What is Asheviere's drive in having the young princes executed ? (see intro)

I mean, I can understand how Delfador killing her firstborn pisses her to no end and how she will strive to put her surviving children on the throne, but why kill the princes ? For all I know, they are also her children and the legitimate heirs. What need is there to have them killed? Are they natural children of Garard who somehow outranked Lisa'r in the line of succession? It seems to me that story elements given in the campaign were never that clear on this subject.

They're Garard's nephews; after he and his brother Arand died at the same battle, they'd have been next in line, with Li'sar's sex presumably being the reason they outranked her.

[LordBob]

Oh. Makes a lot more sense, thanks . I must have missed that when playing the campaign a looooong time ago.

[Telchin]

they'd have been next in line, with Li'sar's sex presumably being the reason they outranked her.

Interesting, but not surprising. It always felt weird to me that Delfador bases Konrad´s right to the throne on being a nephew, when there is a direct descendant. According to the timeline on the wiki Konrad and Lisar were succeeded by their daughter, which would suggest gender-neutral succession line. However, if that was true then the whole killing/saving of the nephews would mean that Lisar´s existence was somehow forgotten by both the wisest wizard in the land and her own mother. Admittedly, even that could be reconciled - Asheviere was probably willing to kill any potential opponents regardless of their actual rights and Delfador could intend to kill Lisar before Konrad decied to spare her.

[Elfarion]

Interesting, but not surprising. It always felt weird to me that Delfador bases Konrad´s right to the throne on being a nephew, when there is a direct descendant. According to the timeline on the wiki Konrad and Lisar were succeeded by their daughter, which would suggest gender-neutral succession line. However, if that was true then the whole killing/saving of the nephews would mean that Lisar´s existence was somehow forgotten by both the wisest wizard in the land and her own mother. Admittedly, even that could be reconciled - Asheviere was probably willing to kill any potential opponents regardless of their actual rights and Delfador could intend to kill Lisar before Konrad decied to spare her.

I think Asheviere gave the order of killing the King's nephews to eliminate any possible threat. Regarding the cirdumstances of how she gained power, Garard's nephews could easily become the leaders of an Anti-Asheviere faction. They could argue that Asheviere was never meant to govern the kingdom. Wars of succession have been started with less strong positions than being the former King's nephew. So even with a gender-neutral succession to the throne murdering Garard's nephews was a logic step of Asheviere to maintain her power.

Besides: IIRC Asheviere was the first female ruler of Wesnoth. So maybe the succession was not gender-neutral until Li'sar became queen. Maybe the nobels and counselors of Wesnoth realised the necessity of changing the laws of succession, so that Li'sar, bearer of the Sceptre of Fire, could become the legal ruler of Wesnoth. (There's no hint in the canon for this argument but for me it sounds plausible.)

[Groggy_Dice]

I mean, I can understand how Delfador killing her firstborn pisses her to no end and how she will strive to put her surviving children on the throne, but why kill the princes ? For all I know, they are also her children and the legitimate heirs. What need is there to have them killed?

It's already been explained why Asheviere killed the king's nephews, but what bothers me about the intro is how she "looked on with glee" as not only Garard, but her other sons besides Eldred were killed at the Ford of Abez. Eldred may be her favorite, but a mother would have to have a cold heart to take "glee" in the death of her other sons.

I don't remember whether Vodot's rewrite changed this or not. But there could be a few explanations for her coldness.

The simplest would be that she's simply an evil psychopath.

Another would be that they weren't her sons. There was a previous wife, or a mistress. This explanation would contradict the current wiki Timeline, and require ret-conning. If there was a first wife, the other sons would actually be older than Eldred. However, this could also be used to explain why Garard II promulgated his rather odd Edict of the Sceptre, rather than keeping to conventional succession arrangements. (At least, if we want to stick with Garard II as the issuer - I have some ruminations on my hard drive about whether it might be better to make Garard I the issuer, or have Garard II issue it at some different date than what the Timeline says now.)

Another possibility is that she thinks at least one of the other sons helped Delfador kill her father. She probably wasn't fooled by Delfador's effort to make it look like an orc attack, and the mansion had a secret passage. How did he find the secret passage, she must have asked, and could have concluded that a disloyal son must have told Delfador about it. That could account for her complete estrangement.

She might also reason that Delfador would not have dared to do what he did unless he had the king's approval. This could explain why she didn't take up the matter with Garard, and could be another reason for wanting the king killed.

(A downside of this explanation is that it involves events from Delfador's Memoirs, and might require lengthy exposition to include in HttH.)

[zookeeper]

Well, as far as I know the existence of Eldred's brothers isn't mentioned in any other campaign, so we could just remove them from the timeline as well to fix that little oddity. Of course we can assume that Eldred was the only son Asheviere could work with while the others were more loyal to Garard, so they had to go as well, but if that too would need to be explained in the intro, then better to not have the brothers at all. Their existence doesn't really contribute anything to the story, after all.

[Telchin]

Well, as far as I know the existence of Eldred's brothers isn't mentioned in any other campaign, so we could just remove them from the timeline as well to fix that little oddity. Of course we can assume that Eldred was the only son Asheviere could work with while the others were more loyal to Garard, so they had to go as well, but if that too would need to be explained in the intro, then better to not have the brothers at all. Their existence doesn't really contribute anything to the story, after all.

You´re right that Eldred´s younger brothers don´t seem serve any purpose in the story and might be as well retconned. However, I was under the impression that the mentioning them was meant to alleviate the age gap between Eldred and Lisar. Eldred was an adult when he killed his father, while Lisar is of similiar age as Konrad, i.e. was a baby (or a toddler?) when her father died. It might seem weird for a family to wait with a second child for cca 19 years and the mention of multiple children in between would bypass this oddity. It wasn´t unusual for royal families to have lots of children (to have a spare in case the firstborn doesn´t survive to adulthood) and it could even give Asheviere another reason to kill her husband (being tired of constant childbirths )